On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:22:05PM +0200, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Op 12-10-09 16:07, Herbert Xu schreef:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > .
> >>> Or should this test be removed?
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> >>> index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
> >>> --- a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> >>> +++ b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> >>> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, 
> >>> struct prng_context *ctx)
> >>>   int err;
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> - if (nbytes < 0)
> >>> + if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
> >>>           return -EINVAL;
> >>>  
> >>>   spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
> >> No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check.  Herbert, 
> >> could you
> >> pull this into cryptodev please?  Thank you.
> > 
> > Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead?
> 
> In that case:
> -------------------------->8------------------8<-------------------------
> size_t nbytes cannot be less than 0 and the test was redundant.
> 
> Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kl...@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> index 3aa6e38..47995ae 100644
> --- a/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> +++ b/crypto/ansi_cprng.c
> @@ -192,9 +192,6 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, 
> struct prng_context *ctx)
>       int err;
>  
>  
> -     if (nbytes < 0)
> -             return -EINVAL;
> -
>       spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
>  
>       err = -EINVAL;
> 


There you go, yes :)
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
Neil

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to